I agree about a penis not being obscene, but it's unfortunately commonly used as a shock picture, for vandalism. But of course, if it wasn't there, they'd just upload it for the vandalism, so no problem.
What really bugs me is when people screw up pictures to make them "less offensive". This means making it black and white, blurring out parts or all of the picture, making the thumbnail 10px and at the bottom of the page where nobody could possible see it, etc.
On 8/17/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty ugly discussion, but reading over their (somewhat misguided) page does bring up one possible addition to the discussion on "inappropriate" images which I didn't see raised before.
Namely, if the English Wiki servers are hosted in a U.S. state, then the site does, if I am not mistaken, fall under various laws about the distribution of "obscene" images to minors. "Obscene" is of course a subject term, in the legal realm as well as here, but there is some precedent which could allow one to make such decisions.
Well I'm making a big assumption here. But I'm going to assume that Florida is a reasonable state with reasonable laws on obscenity. If that is the case then we simple shouldn't have any images that are obscene.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a pornshop.
For example. I do not believe that the picture of an erect penis on the penis article is obscene. It it encylopedic and entirely appropriate for minors, and I cannot believe that the state of Florida would think otherwise. _If_ we have any pornographic pictures, and we do have a lot of pics of pornstars, I haven't checked them all but it's certainly possible that someone might upload a pornographic image of one of them we should simplr delete them as innapropriate for an encylopedia.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l